of these massacres, together with approximately 45 members of the Civil Self-defense Patrol from the village of Xococ. Mr. Tecú Osorio even provided the names of most of them.293 Nevertheless, neither the investigation nor the judgment reveal that any of the persons indicated as responsible, other than the ones who have already been convicted, were investigated. 203. Since facts such as those of the instant case involve massive, systematic and grave human rights violations, the State must use and apply legal mechanisms that are appropriate for the analysis of the case, the criminal categories corresponding to the acts investigated, and a satisfactory investigation294 capable of truly guaranteeing the human rights involved. In this regard, the Court must recall that the categorization of criminal offense falls to the competent domestic authorities. However, in this case, the Court observes that the crime of “murder” for which eight people were convicted in judgments dated November 8, 1998, and May 28, 2009, does not reflect the gravity, multiplicity or magnitude of the acts that occurred during the Pacoxom and Agua Fría massacres. As can be noted from the testimony given by several victims before the domestic courts, as well as in this Judgment, in this case, acts have occurred that are not limited to the “murder” of members of the Río Negro community. Yet, those facts have not been investigated. 204. In addition, the Court wishes to emphasize that an arrest warrant was only issued on April 15, 2003, for the army colonel accused of having given the order for the total elimination of the Río Negro community (supra para. 107), despite the fact that he had been accused of being one of those allegedly responsible since 1993. The said colonel is currently retired and receives a monthly retirement pension, as the State indicated during the public hearing and in its final written arguments. Guatemala indicated that it had taken various measures to try and find him, including searches, and that it had also submitted search requests to several entities and institutions (supra para. 107). Nevertheless, to date, the colonel has still not been located or arrested. The Court observes that these measures have been limited to sending official notes and that no other type of investigative measure has been taken that would be more in keeping with the situation. In this regard, during the public hearing, expert witness Hermann Mörth stated that it was “inconceivable that a person could be sought with an arrest warrant, while calmly continuing to receive a pension, without the military institution itself or the [Military Social Security Institute] sharing this information voluntarily.” 205. The Court notes that the judgment of October 7, 1999, indicates that “the murder was accompanied by aggravating circumstances, including […] the assistance of armed individuals, because the act was executed with the help of a large group of armed and uniformed soldiers who provided security for the act and possibly even ensured its impunity […].”295 As already mentioned (supra para. 194), due diligence in the investigations means taking into account the patterns of action of the complex structure of individuals involved in the perpetration of acts that violate human rights. Therefore, although the context of this case, which is widely known in Guatemala, and the above-mentioned judgment of October 7, 1999, as well as the testimony given by presumed victims before the domestic courts and before this Court indicate that both patrollers and soldiers participated in the Pacoxom and 293 Cf. brief filed by Jesús Tecú Osorio before the First Instance Court for Crime, Drug-trafficking and Offenses against the Environment of Baja Verapaz on January 28, 2003 (file of attachments to the final written arguments of the State, folios 27361 to 27369). 294 Cf. Case of Gelman v. Uruguay, supra, para. 234. 295 Judgment of the Sentencing Court for Crime, Drug-trafficking and Offenses against the Environment of the Department of Baja Verapaz of October 7, 1999 (file of attachments to the final written arguments of the State, folio 30665). 75